EX-2588 Refactor sovrn bid adapter tests #33
Conversation
| @@ -1,291 +1,261 @@ | |||
| import {expect} from 'chai'; | |||
| import {spec} from 'modules/sovrnBidAdapter.js'; | |||
| import {config} from 'src/config.js'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please make all these format changes like excessive semicolons and apostrophes removal in a separate commit so we could focus on the actual logic change?
I would actually suggest a separate PR, but since this is a fork, a separate PR would be less conviniant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually let's make it a seperate PR, it will be easier for the prebid folks
| 'bidder': 'sovrn', | ||
| 'params': { | ||
| 'tagid': 403370 | ||
| const baseBidRequest = { |
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('prebid 3 upgrade', function() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, this test seems to still be necessary.
| @@ -1,291 +1,261 @@ | |||
| import {expect} from 'chai'; | |||
| import {spec} from 'modules/sovrnBidAdapter.js'; | |||
| import {config} from 'src/config.js'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually let's make it a seperate PR, it will be easier for the prebid folks
| let result = spec.interpretResponse(response); | ||
| expect(Object.keys(result[0])).to.deep.equal(Object.keys(expectedResponse[0])); | ||
| }); | ||
| const expectedResponse = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like you could address duplication here
| 'id': '546956d68c757f', | ||
| 'seatbid': [ | ||
| body: { | ||
| id: '546956d68c757f', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need this seperate data object or can we use the response above?
| 'body': { | ||
| 'id': '546956d68c757f-2', | ||
| 'seatbid': [ | ||
| body: { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
again, seems like there should be a way to use a single response object
mikhalovich
force-pushed
the
EX-2588
branch
from
c57c0a6 to
f80878a
Compare
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('prebid 3 upgrade', function() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, this test seems to still be necessary.
No description provided.